March 09, 2008

In a report today that may signal new promise for the pro-war campaign of Senator John McCain, the State Department has released figures showing a decrease in US spending in Iraq of 1/24th, or nearly 5%, on Sunday compared to the same period one week ago.

The savings of approximately $17 million, or about what the US spends each hour in Iraq (I'm not making that up), was heralded by Sen. McCain as yet another sign that the Iraq occupation is finally paying dividends.

The report was met with skepticism by some of the nation's top scientists, who ascribed the change in spending to an annual phenomenon they call "daylight savings time," and which they believe relates to the Earth's orbital position around the sun. President Bush and other Republican leaders called these studies "inconclusive."

Meanwhile, Sen. Obama and Clinton have released dueling plans that would each reduce annual spending in Iraq by a whopping 20%. Sen. Obama's plan, already endorsed by several labor unions, calls for the creation of a non-mandatory 130-hour week, while Sen. Clinton wants to maintain the current 168-hour week while cutting February and July.

February 28, 2008

The right-wing mot du jour seems to be "socialist." Sometimes, confusingly, it is combined with "communist" or with the communistic honorific "comrade," especially to make use of the appealing internal rhyme in "comrade Obama." All this has left me, as a notoriously poor student of politics and history, wondering, "What is socialism, why is the word popping up now, and how should I react to it?" This post is something of an experiment, a sort of thinking aloud, where I try to work through (hopefully with readers' assistance) some confusing and ambiguous political labels.

First, let me get it out of the way: I know Obama isn't a socialist. If you're here as an Obama rallyist, you can spare me. I got the message. You like Obama. Awesome. I'm with you. Now let's move on, and consider what socialism is, what it isn't, and whether we as progressive Democrats should embrace the label, scorn it, or ignore it. Everything I write here is going to be a summary of things I just googled up. Treat this post as an open thread for thoughts or references on the topic.

The title of this post comes from a line in Engels's essay, describing earlier Enlightment conceptions of socialism in the late 18th century, particularly around the French Revolution and development of industry. Of these earlier Socialist attempts, Engels wrote:

One thing is common to all three ["Utopians" (Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen)]. Not one of them appears as a representative of the interests of that proletariat which historical development had, in the meantime, produced. Like the French philosophers, they do not claim to emancipate a particular class to begin with, but all humanity at once. Like them, they wish to bring in the kingdom of reason and eternal justice, but this kingdom, as they see it, is as far as Heaven from Earth, from that of the French philosophers.

Engels's underlying beef here, as I read it, is that previous Socialists had attempted to reform society from first principles, using Enlightment ideals of reason conquering all, and basing their plans on their own assumptions about equality, justice, and righteousness. Since few people ever agree on such things, these attempts descended into unresolvable conflicts or else what we would today call watered-down compromises.

February 26, 2008

Firedoglake had Jacob Heilbrunn as a guest about two weeks ago, and I wish I had been up with the list -- I was present during most of the discussion, but the book was still in my pile, and I don't like asking questions about unread books. Heilbraunn's book is "They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neo-Cons" -- for some reason I though the discussion would be a week later.

Let me be clear here, I was born into this terribly odd corner of politics in the 30's. My Parents were members of Max Shachtmann's "Worker's Party" in the late 30's, which split from a faction of the Socialist Party, and then eventually became part of the Michael Harrington faction, well maybe yes and maybe no Democratic Socialist group. But quite unlike how Heilbrunn depicts the neo-con's during and before World War II as not at all concerned with the situation of Jews in Germany and Austria, in fact he is probably wrong, it was not as if they did not know the score. There was a profound bleed over from political ideology to practical action, and while Heilbrunn tracks quiet rightly the arguments of the CCNY boys in Alcove One right up to today's Neo-con think-tanks and journals, -- all he really does is describe, and leave it at that.

Heilbrunn leaves his book with an imagined 2016, with the Jeb Bush Restoration. How did the neo-con's manage to destroy American Foreign Policy, accept no blame, await time, and then later emerge with the prize? How did the little trot, minority marxist outfit in alcove one get control of US Foreign Policy?

My own sense is that the neo-cons took advantage of a vacume in serious American Foreign Policy debate. We need to comprehend what an absence of knowledge of the world and US policy created.

One reason Sara disappears for days at a time is simple, she reads real books, and when at full speed can do about four a week. She puts new books in piles, sometimes with previously read books on the same topic, and asserts the right not to do instant analysis, but to re-read and think and all that, and sometimes it is not productive of posts.

So recent reading -- Matt Bai's book that was rather quickly dismissed in Blogger circles, "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake the Democratic Party" -- which I found of interest on two levels, both because it does contain useful recent history, but also because from what Bai has to Say, Rob Stein is very proud of being an Antiochian, Class of 66, (Stein being the organizer of the Billionaire part of the title), and is totally open about how a true progressive education matters. I had fun with just that bit out of Bai's book -- posting Stein's accomplishments raising funds for Democratic Infrastructure on the Alumni site -- and oh dear, someone said it was not a good idea to post what was already in a book, and probably in the Times. In fact the negotiations appear to be totally stonewalled between the Alumni who have incorporated with some millions behind them, and the University Board which wants, apparently to hold on to the real estate value of a mid 19th century college campus for the sake of a profitable conference center sans college. We've just told the current students to look elsewhere, and June 30th, the place gets boarded up.

Anyhow, Bai's book about how to invent or re-invent a progressive infrastructure, with Stein as the star of the show essentially, and Stein telling Bai during coffees in DC how much of what he invisions for the Democratic Party is really a product of his Antioch Education, but then he isn't really a precence in the current conflab -- well what in the hell is going on.

Of course anyone who looks at reality knows that Progressives need to build institutions, and what bothers me is why they can't see their way to building and preserving one that is now over 150 years old.

Beyond this connection with the personalities in Bai's book, no one who is vaguely progressive should not read. The whole culture of not exactly knowing what they are "for" and what they might want to oppose among the Billionaires in the Democratic circle, it needs understanding. Many were bought up short supporting Kerry without adequate analysis, others are more locally oriented. Many are specific issue oriented. Unlike the Republicans who were rallied by a memo from Justice Powell to focus and concentrate their efforts, we need to comprehend why this hasn't happened on our side.

Many Bloggers have dismissed Bai's book -- I think it worth a good read.

February 25, 2008

I've tossed around this notion twice in passing recently, but let me take a minute to lay it out with a little (very little) more substance.

Why is the voting age 18?

The voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 during the Vietnam War, when individuals too young to vote were being drafted. Although several states had already lowered the voting age, the highest minimum voting age was set nationally by the 26th Amendment, reading "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."

Note that it doesn't say no one younger than 18 shouldn't be allowed to vote -- just that no one older than 18 can be denied the right to vote.

Why lower the voting age now?

Ideologically, simply because I think 17 is old enough. The child-adult boundary is increasingly drawn at 16: the federal chld labor laws apply to those 16 and under, the age of sexual consent in most states is 16 or 17, and the military's minimum enlistment age is 17 (though that does require parental consent, and the minimum combat age is 18). In recent years the army has been aggresively recruiting in high schools -- in some cases, VERY aggressively. In fact, No Child Left Behind said that high schools were unable to keep military recruiters away from students without forfeiting federal funds. I think that if you can drive, work, have sex, and join the army, you are grown-up enough to vote.

Politically, because it is a win for Democrats across the board. What's more, we are approaching perfect storm conditions for this kind of movement. There are about 4 million 17-year-olds in the US, who are overwhelmingly Democratic. Young people are being drawn into politics like never before through the Obama campaign. We are heading into an election where a major defining contrast is between youth and age. We have a Republican party wrapping itself in "support the troops," who will find themselves taking a stand against the rights of the youngest military personnel. At the state level, Democratic governors are in the majority for the first time since 1992, and half of our Democratic governors control states that Bush won in 2004. Even if we can't reasonably lower the voting age before November -- and, frankly, I don't think we can -- a campaign to do so at the national and at the state level would further energize the youth movement, would underscore the differences between the parties, would put Republicans in an uncomfortable position, and would lay the groundwork for real change in coming years.

How would we do it?

I can imagine two ways. First, Congress could either pass a Constitutional amendment or a law lowering the voting age to 17. The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government can't set the voting age for state elections (that's why the current voting age is set by a Constitutional amendment), so if Congress passes a law it would need to be written so that 17-year-olds could vote in federal elections but not on state ballots, a recipe for confusion at the polls. One way around this might be to treat 17-year-olds nationally similar to the way Americans abroad are treated, who can vote in presidential elections but not on state matters. I have no idea how this would work.

The second approach is a series of state-level laws or ballot initiatives. This approach has the advantage of keeping the movement local, building local activism, getting young people learning the political system from the bottom-up. And, as noted above, Democrats control the governorships of 14 red states, and swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. Lowering the voting age in a few swing states alone could have as much impact on the election as a national measure might.

Summary

Lowering the voting age to 17 would add a few million Democrats to the rolls, capitalize on the youth-powered movement that Obama has begun, and put Republicans in the uncomfortable position of arguing that the youngest enlisted military personnel should not be allowed to vote.

February 23, 2008

This post begins with a hypothesis: that Obama's wins have been bigger in red states than in blue states. It was based on the recollection that Clinton had fared best in the northeast and California, including the Big Blue threesome (CA, MA, NY) while Obama had been sweeping the south and west. If true, it seemed to challenge the conventional wisdom that one must run left in a Democratic primary to win, and the perception that Clinton is the more centrist candidate. If true, it might also bring interest to how the coin will fall in the remaining Big Blue states, Vermont and Rhode Island, whose March 4 primaries are otherwise overshadowed by the more delegate-rich contests in Texas and Ohio.

But, as you'll see, the hypothesis does not hold up well to the data. (Q: "What's the difference between a blogger and a pundit?" A: "One tests their ideas against the data, the other tests the data against their ideas.") That is, it is not entirely true -- Obama's performance in a state is probably explained better by geography, by timing, and by whether it is a caucus or primary state, than it is by how red or blue the state is -- but, as you'll see, it's not entirely false either.

February 16, 2008

The House spent some quality time this week with Roger Clemens at hearings that occupied both the attention of Representative Henry Waxman's Committee on Oversight and Government Reform as well as a big chunk of my morning paper's front page. These hearings were, to all extents and purposes, completely useless.

Leaving aside the fact that Congress has not seen fit to include baseball under the activities it regulates as interstate commerce (at least to my shaky understanding, as of 1972's Flood v. Kuhn) and therefore has given itself no jurisdiction over the sport, leaving aside that other star entertainers like 50 Cent, Wyclef Jean and Timbaland have also been accused of steroid use but have not been pulled before Congress (and that's not to mention pro wrestling), leaving aside that both Waxman and Clemens now say the hearings were unnecessary -- leaving aside all of that -- whether pro athletes or other entertainers use steroids is simply not something that's at the top of my priority list, and certainly not what I want my Congress to work on.

If Congress has run out of ideas for what to do, or finds itself unsure where my priorities lie, here are 100 things Congress could work on that would matter more to me than investigating steroids in baseball.

February 10, 2008

I noticed over the past week that we've had an unusual amount of traffic from people searching for information about Rosa Parks (and, to their good fortune, they were finding this excellent piece by DHinMI, from TNH's glory years months). For those still googling, the answer is, no, Rosa Parks didn't have children.

But, I began to wonder why the sudden interest in Rosa Parks. Then I realized it's February and, naturally, the shortest month is also Black History Month. Although only fleetingly observed by the general public, there seem to be enough (students?) interested in the topic that it has a measurable impact on search engine traffic. In fact, if civilization came to an end and all that survived were google's search records, you could still figure out when Black History Month had been:

Unfortunately, as ordinary taxpayers, we don't have that much influence over the final budget. If we want to see more money put into biomedical research or the arts we can vote every couple years, we can try to lobby Congress, or we can give to charitable groups and bypass the government entirely. Maybe there ought to be a more direct method.

Suppose we try something new. Take the budget -- Bush's proposal is over $3 trillion -- and make a 0.1% across-the-board cut, reducing every agency's funding by one penny out of every 10 dollars. Take the resulting $3 billion and put it into a Taxpayer-Directed Spending fund. And let the people decide where that money should go.

I groaned when I heard Clinton had accepted an invitation to a Fox News Channel debate, because it is a huge distraction from what had threatened to become a substantive, engaging primary. I'm not personally among those who really care one way or the other whether a debate is held on Fox -- the discussion, to me, feels like a battle between media interests (and, yes, if you have a blog you're a media interest) and I can't reconcile it with the boasts of how Democrats are poised to put the reddest of red counties into play -- but I do see an opportunity here.

The very simple idea arose when I heard a soundbite from Clinton while flipping among election reports last night. I haven't been able to find it online, but here's my best paraphrase [this is not a quote]: We want to have a debate every week for the next four weeks, and at this point we're accepting all invitations.

Well, that sounds open! That sounds lovely! And that sounds like a great idea.

Instead of whetting our knives, why not invite Clinton and Obama to debate on the terms of the progressive blogosphere? The owners of the most-trafficked 3 or 4 sites can moderate. An outstanding list of questions was drafted last week by mcjoan over at dailykos in her What I want to know post. I'm sure we can think of other ways to bring a debate live on-line in a manner that hasn't been seen before. And, if Clinton is indeed accepting invitations from all comers, surely she will not embrace Fox and refuse us?

I've got an auditorium packed full of scientists I could volunteer, and I can make some lemonade or something. Anyone else willing to chip in?

February 05, 2008

Yesterday I was undecided, and frankly to some extent I remain so. I've read with interest the endorsements of Meteor Blades and DHinMI (both writing elsewhere for some godforsaken reason) on behalf of Barack Obama. Personally, I am not above buying my political opinions wholesale from either of them (and from the latter I've done it repeatedly before). In each post, they sound similar notes, essentially: (1) Obama is a skilled politician, and no more (or less) than that; (2) ultimately change will not come from the White House but from Congress or the populace; and so what matters is that (3) Obama is best suited to evoke the strongest efforts and loftiest dreams from the real change-makers around him and among us.

I agree with (1) whole-heartedly. As for (2) and (3), I may be misrepresenting or oversimplifying their arguments. To be accurate, DHinMI wrote "What mattered in 1932, however, was the mandate from the voters, the 13 Senate seats and the 97 House seats that came along with Roosevelt's landslide. ...[T]his is maybe the most important difference between a ticket led by Barack Obama and one headed up by Hillary Clinton." Meteor Blades wrote "If Obama wins come November, it will be up to that grassroots, that congregation, not only to hold his feet to the fire, but also, and more importantly, to press forward the extra-electoral politics [that brought] real hope and real change to America nearly half a century ago." What I read in each of those arguments is that Clinton and Obama are (mostly) equally suited to the policy work of the presidency, but Obama is exceptionally suited to the figurehead, or symbolic, work of that office.

Most folk think the New Deal ended with WWII, but actually many of the projects had energy that just kept them going. And while these are not exactly world shattering, I thought I would just review a list of some of the survivors that lots of folk have probably used without knowing their origin.

Let me begin with High School Bands and Orchestras. The work for Music Copyists and arrangers was rock bottom during the Depression, and one of the more obscure WPA projects employed them to simplify, re-arrange and then copy the work of masters as well as military bands so that limited talent high school level music groups could perform it. You know, the kid who borrowed his horn from a school collection, and wanted to march with his high school band. Not someone who had heavy investment in private music lessons. Not really a candidate for Julliard.

In fact much of the music used today in such organizations was the product of the WPA Music Project. Between Mozart and Sousa, the project provided full scores and simplified instrumental parts, all free of copyright and royality, and at least initially, all about encouraging the employment of High School Band Directors and Music arrangers, and as a side benefit, the value of music in the schools to the students themselves and to the community for which they played this music.

How many people know about the "American Guide" series, produced and published by the WPA American Writers' Project. Totally there are about 52 volumes in this series, One for each state, and several for individual cities such as New York and Washington DC. They are organized as "tours" from a central point in each state, with each point of interest that sustained a historical review, described in full. The project managed to debunk many "Indian Leaps" -- places where either Indians had lept to avoid capture, or Indian Maidens had chosen to leap off cliffs to their death, but it highlighted the economic development of the country, industry started that failed, industry that bloomed. It did architecture, arts and design, patterns in home crafts, it dealt with local religion and local commerce. It researched and dealt with local geography and geology that underscored how and why development had occured as it did. Over the years, the series has become the secret source for many writers of Fiction, needing a reliable source for setting, and it is still used today. No author names are associated with the pieces, but many were later famous. For instance you have Richard Wright (Then working short hours at the Post Office) working on the manuscript for Chicago's South Side -- but also working on Mississippi. Not enough authors made it clear that the WPA guide series were really their cheat sheet, when they needed local color. Again -- people who could write were also unemployed, and 22 dollars a week for writing tour guide pieces verified by careful research, was a way to "put food on the family." (where did that quote come from? Not a WPA writer I assume.)

And while the OSS eventually benefited from it, another small WPA project at Columbia has always intrigued me. Translations of underground German Opinion survey materials, and German demography (1936- 38) based on and linked with these attitude surveys, crude though they were in the larger picture of what was happening in methods of such social research. Recent Refugees such as Adorno, Hockheimer, and Hans Eisler were paid 22 dollars a week to work on these materials -- and funds were sent to Paris where the underground could arrange to quietly and carefully collect more data. And yes, they were classified as just translators. Just WPA Translators. I've read their typescript, but I still wonder what that project was all about.

So from translating German attitudes and demography to ramping up school orchestras and bands, or providing local color for fiction writers, the WPA and other New Deal programs were all over the map trying to both do something of value and, at the same time, inflate the American Economy with the same projects. And while many created longstanding and important value -- why are they so ignored?

I am not suggesting any of these should be reconstructed or repeated, the times, the technology is different today. Taste differs. But the point is this was all actually done by Government, and with all the comprehendable objections that somehow if the product was not ordered from the market, it is worthless.

But when I hear a High School band doing a familiar March tune, sometimes I can vaguely hear what in the long gone days was "level of difficulty" in the on offer arrangement, and quietly I remember that in those days Harry Hopkins was running the WPA for FDR, and they invented all this stuff, and paid hungry musical types to create the resource.

February 04, 2008

Who are you undecided jerks
who know not where you stand
who in political shadows lurk
and never show your hands?
Are you so indecisive?
Or just uninformed?
I mean all due respect, but
really, it's no way to live.
Your opinions come pre-warmed
by pundits - stop, and listen to your gut!

What is your demographic?
What issues are you for?
Cut taxes, reduce traffic,
reach out and save the poor?
Are you 24 to 33?
Is your income median?
Who got your vote in '04?
Do you have your GED,
and are you in a union?
So tell me, which one are you for?

Do you like Clinton or Obama?
They each spent a hundred mil
in a mega-campaign-o-rama
so that you could get your fill
of health plans and of timetables
and of hope, pan-anodyne.
Yet here you sit, and say the two
are interchangeable
and either would be fine?Oh crap... I'm one of you!

One thing that is quite clear -- Americans don't know a whole lot about their own History. And in many cases, what they do know, is distorted in very interesting ways.

FDR is an interesting case in point. In recent years much about him and his 11 plus year Presidency, has focused on the fact that he could not walk on his own, and when photographers and observers were not about, (well hush hush) he used a wheel chair. In the popular mind what he did to deal with the Great Depression has been replaced by the idea he hid his disability, and maybe even his polio. For the sake of PC, Eleanor had to shed her Fox & Mink Furs on her memorial statue, and Franklin needed to have a chair with real wheels. I consider both issues and advocacy moves distractions from the core history.

No one who supported FDR in his four campaigns did not comprehend that he could not walk alone, and that he had been paralysed. Myth has it that because Secret Service lifted him out of cars, and no one took pictures, it was secret. Hell no. You didn't have events such as FDR's Birthday in January every year, where collections in every movie theatre in the land were organized for the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis -- The March of Dimes -- and not know what it was about. You knew that part of that money was for local institutions that offered all who needed it rehabilitation therapy, some of it was for research, and some for Rehab research. And while the vaccines came nearly ten years after he died -- both were funded by the FDR Birthday Bashes we had back in those days -- and there is not a disease specific organization out there that does not borrow from the March of Dimes model. Moreover the current Federally Funded disease models borrow from it. In FDR's days the only medical research money was in the Military, and that was small change, but he changed all that, the Feds now respond to the Polio model. FDR died in 45, I think it was 1954 when I got a polio shot, and now except for a few isolated places, the disease is gone. And so the pressure to represent this man in his Wheel Chair -- Why? Of course it is how he lived, but it was not what he did. What he did was rehab, research best practices in rehab, and finance the research necessary to a cheap universal vaccine. So why over the last several decades have our eyes been diverted to a wheel chair? Wrong Icon in my mind.

Over the past several decades we have been told that Government can't actually accomplish all that much, particularly big Government. Everything needs to be under private contracts -- business models and all the rest. Not for Profit Public Model very Bad, and For Profit Business Excellent. I ask -- would the private sector have created a polio vaccine that cost pennies, and was denied no one on account of price, and quickly became universally available through Public Health Officials? I think a better way to represent FDR would be an injection needle, or a sugar cube with a drop of vaccine on it.

FDR was always curious as to what actually caused the Great Depression, and during his early years in office, while inventing programs right and left to deal with the consequences, he kept asking for research. He got one answer in 1941 from the Conant who made plain that the US Population was profoundly underskilled and undereducated. At the time the US was sending about 5% of young adults to college, and only 50% were graduating from High School. For a modern economy, Conant said, the US needed 30% of its young adults to go to college or advanced skills schools, and at least 80% needed to complete High School. The depression had been caused, according to Conant, by too many underskilled workers chasing too few low skilled jobs. It was the higher skilled jobs that added economic value. In 1941, FDR put the study in a desk drawer. In 1944 it was the primary reason he ended up agreeing to the Educational Benefits in the GI Bill. The GI Bill was a way to approach that necessary 30% that might avoid a future Great Depression. Actually FDR didn't like discrimination on Educational Benefits between Vets and non Vets -- but no situation was perfect. By 1955 a little more than 50% of High School Grads were going on to College or into training programs, and we were approaching overall HSchool grad rates of 75%.

My point is simple -- Government Policy, and sometimes Big Government can solve problems -- and just as our eyes have been diverted from FDR's private financing of Polio Re-hab, and the basic research and then the Vaccine to wipe out the disease by the figure of him in a wheel chair, and the stupid idea that his condition was secret, so too have we been diverted from comprehending other accomplishments, such as seeing a quite practical way to create a much more valuable workforce, by building Ed. Benefits into the GI Bill of 1944. In essence we have been denied an understanding of our history, and thus made open to the propaganda that big government can do nothing at all, or at least nothing well.

I do not necessarily favor re-creating New Deal style programs -- though I also do not necessarily oppose that -- what I do think is important is working to reject the notion that Government, big or little, is necessarily bad. Part of that is understanding that FDR's programs did work in many ways. They didn't solve all problems, but they also did not all fail. Equally important is understanding how the campaign against "Big Government" has been a shotgun approach to negating the idea that Government can actually do good things for the common interest. Too many voters do not comprehend the counter argument to that point. Too little history of what was changed by "Big Government" policy of that earlier era has survived as comprehended or taught history.

Attached to this is the matter of whether problems can be solved by human intervention. Falwell and Robertson would have us believe that all things are at the will of a god that they communicate with on a regular basis. I suggest that such arguments about divine intervention just reinforce notions that collective Government can do nothing, or nothing right. I prefer John Kennedy's words -- On this Earth, God's work must surely be our own. But it is also necessary to confront the idea, that planning and programs are all necessarily bad, and always incompetent.

February 02, 2008

A month ago there was a spate of "sky is green" articles claiming that Iraq is no longer an important issue for voters:

Iraq War Fades as an Election Issue (NPR, Dec 6) "...concerns about Iraq remain, but the war is not the only top-tier issue among voters. Many have turned their focus to domestic issues such as health care, energy, the mortgage crisis and immigration."

Pocketbook issues push past Iraq in poll (USA Today, Dec 28) "More than half the voters in an ongoing survey for The Associated Press and Yahoo News say the economy and health care are extremely important to them personally. They fear they will face unexpected medical expenses, their homes will lose value or mortgage and credit card payments will overwhelm them."

Domestic issues now outweigh Iraq (NY Times, Jan 3) "...the war is becoming a less defining issue among Democrats nationally, and it has moved to the back of the stage in the rush of campaign rallies, town hall meetings and speeches that are bringing the caucus competition to an end. Instead, candidates are being asked about, and are increasingly talking about, the mortgage crisis, rising gas costs, health care, immigration, the environment and taxes."

The funny thing is, when this voter sees "health care," "mortgage crisis," "rising gas costs," "the environment," and "taxes" I read them all as a single four-letter word: Iraq.

As we move toward Super Duper Tuesday, and many who hope things will be decided that day, need is to know some additional obscure rules of the Democratic Party, that most years make little difference. This year they might.

Unlike our Republican opposition, we Democrats have rules about proportional representation, meaning that state by state delegates must be elected so as to reflect degree of support in every state. We don't do winner take all. For the most part, we do it congressional district by district, and reflect proportinate support in each, and then we select some delegates later at the State Wide Level, again divided by degrees of overall state support. Yes, it is a complex system, and yes, it is the response to LBJ throwing the nomination to Hubert in 1968, and the follow on McGovern-Fraser Commission rules, but unless you understand the rules, and how all this plays -- it will be hard to deal with Tuesday and what it might mean.

Right now I am just thinking over what Jim Oberstar's endorsement of Obama today really means. (Oberstar chairs the House Transportation Committee,) represents Duluth and the Iron Range, the 8th District, and that district usually returns about 80% of its votes for the DFL. It is an ethnic mix of various Yugoslav tribes, Cornish Miners, Polish and Hungarians, and lots of Finns plus a supply of Norwegian Loggers. Not many African Americans in the 8th -- in fact they had one of the few Northern Lynchings in 1919. (We have since put up a memorial to the victims). Back in the 60's, when the Air Force Base was active, the State Civil Rights Commission was always dealing with one or another serious discrimination case. But, they are going Obama this year. In addition, it is the only Congressional District that ever actually elected a Communist to Congress. Old Johnny Bernard (FL-1938-40) has that distinction. Anyhow Oberstar is apparently leading the 8th to Obama.

But that does not get us to Rules that now have meaning. Once the full state delegations are selected through primary, caucus & Convention or because of Superdelegate Status, each State delegation forms up and selects delegates to serve on the Rules, Credentials and Platform committees, with the numerical support for either Clinton or Obama in each State being in control of the selection process. They select two for each committee, one M and one F. Then shortly before the Denver Convention, these committees assemble, and if there are disputes, this is where they get their first hearing.

Now in the case of Florida and Michigan Delegations, the decision to strip them of delegates was made by the DNC at the recommendation of the ongoing Rules or Credentials Commission. Such Commissions do party business between conventions, but when we are on the eve of a national convention, the 120 or so member committees delegated by the states (add in DC and the territories), become the authorative bodies, and an appeal from a DNC ruling is rightly brought before these committees. If they receive such an appeal, they will hold hearings, and eventually issue a "majority report" -- and if 25% or more of the committee do not agree with that report, they can write a "minority report" and that will send the decision on seating Florida and Michigan to the floor for debate and resolution. Minority Reports are always debated and voted on first. If such fails, that indicates the floor favors the Majority Report. That vote could well determine our Nomination this year.

There is another way to go to the floor -- and that is by petition. My memory has it, you must have 40% of the delegates credentialed in order to put the issue on the floor in this way. Again, the debate would begin with the petition position, and then the DNC ruling. Florida and Michigan, not yet being seated, would not participate in this debate or vote as they would have no delegates. (Nor would they participate in the Credentials Committee resolution votes.) The vote of the Convention Floor is final -- no appeal.

Why are these obscure rules important? -- because the difference between a first ballot victory for Hillary may well depend on seating these delegations, which she "won" in two unsanctioned primaries. Yes, one can argue that they violated the DNC rules by moving their primaries forward, and well they did, but one also must observe that it is hardly good politics to slight Florida and Michigan which for various reasons could be critical in a Democratic Victory in November, no matter who our candidate will be. Remember, in the end this is about electorial votes.

Now I know these obscure rules are complex, but I have a real thing about the importance of Floor Fights, if you can set one up so that it means something. Back in 1948, in Philly, the Democrats had a doozy over the Minority Civil Rights Plank, which was spoken too by then Mayor Hubert Humphrey in what is now called the "Sunshine Speech" (come out from the dark ages of States Rights, and into the bright Sunshine of Human Rights.) God, what a moment in Democratic Party History! Strom Thurmond led the segregationist Dixiecrats out of the hall once the minority plank past, and it was the beginning of our party's effort to change from its racially exclusionary past to something very different. I was Eleven at the time, my Dad and I (no TV) sat in front of the radio and listened, and then kept a talley of the vote, while all the time my Mom wanted to get going to a Family Picnic, as she had the potato salad on ice, and ready to go. We stayed and finished counting the votes.

Four years later the Republicans had a Floor Fight between the Taft and Eisenhower wings of the party -- Taft, who voted against Public Housing and joining NATO and the Marshall Plan, and Ike who was an internationalist associated with the Vandenberg wing of the Republican Party. Fascinating floor fight that settled Republican International Politics till the Neo-con's came along.

Democrats had another one in 1972 -- whether to seat the California and Illinois delegations, elected in opposition to the open and proportional representation rules of the McGovern-Fraser Report of that year. It settled the matter, we do proportional representation, and gender balance.

And can one ever forget 1964 and the Floor Fight over the seating of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party delegation, led by Fanny Lou Hammer? Poor Hubert, sent by LBJ to deal with the problem, but no real and easy compromise was on offer. It was a year before the Voting Rights Act, but it set the course. Mississippi would be seated, but two Freedom Democrats would get the At Large seats, and sit in the delegation. The Mississippi whites walked out, and quietly the Freedom Delegation were allowed into their seats. Mississippi was "told" no seats next time unless the process for selection includes everyone. They quickly became Republicans.

As I say, I love floor fights if they are about ringing the bells and saying real political cultural change has transpired, and the convention is observing and supporting the reality. The real spirit behind what Hubert did in 1948 was Eleanor Roosevelt, who was super busy at the time drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but who had pushed, shoved, pinched, kicked and other things --- Franklin, to do the right thing on Race, even though every Committee in the Senate was in the hands of a Southern Segregationist and a Democrat. Truman thought what Humphrey did would cost him the election. In fact it won it for him, and it is enlightening to read Robert Caro's description of how the Southern bigots comprehended in November 1948, when they read the detailed returns and realized that their own Committee Chairs, and Truman's Office had been saved by the working class black vote in the industrial north. One has to read the editorial pages in the Black Press to understand why old Humph moved that election as he did. Yes, Floor Fights can have great meaning. But is Hillary setting one up that will have meaning? That is the argument we should be about, understanding the sometimes obscure rules of the Democratic Party.

I remember when we were doing the talley in 1948, my Dad commenting that I was adding up real history. Yep, he was right. I wish I had saved our scratch sheet. But rules informed how that floor fight was done, and anything done this year will be by current rules. I only hope TV is willing to properly broadcast and has pundits who can properly interpret what might happen. But maybe the voters will settle it well in advance, and there will be no event. In a sense, that might be sad. No bells.

February 01, 2008

Hillary Clinton made an interesting statement in the debate last night. She was asked how, as a member of one of the two families who have led the country the last 20 years, she could call herself an "agent of change".

[Side note for word watchers: "agent of change" brings up 25,000 google hits with "Clinton" and "Obama" together; 17,000 with "Clinton" alone; and only 9,000 with "Obama" alone. On the other hand, it brings up 22,000 with "Bush" and without the other two, a warning not to read google's tea leaves too quickly.]

I've been thinking a bit about the dynastic objections that are often raised around Clinton's candidacy. They come wrapped in some interesting packaging.

One wrapper, as noted above, is the idea that Clinton is a Washington insider and cannot embody the change that Americans deeply desire. This objection makes very little sense, because the change we're seeking is change from eight years of tax-cut-and-spend deficits, treating the military as a doormat, and a failure to use public money for the public good. The fact that she's part of a family who has a record of fixing exactly those problems is not really a drawback.

Another wrapper, most vocally espoused by Chris Matthews, is that she didn't make it here on her own. This attack is sometimes bundled with a critique of her experience, such as Blitzer made last night when he asked why she considers herself more experienced than Obama considering she has been a senator for about the same period and was not in an elected position as First Lady. This critique is also garbage, because obviously nobody makes it on their own -- we have all enjoyed the help of family, mentors, and colleagues to get where we are. Even Bush, as much as it pains me to say it, did not get to be president by being born into it. If that were the case, then surely first in line to the throne would not have been the children of a one-term wonder like Bush Sr (and even among his spawn Junior is not the sharpest tack). If nepotism were that powerful, the Clinton currently in office would as likely be Roger as Hillary. Surely, all these people have had advantages (though 90% of opportunity is recognizing it when it arrives) -- but even the most-privileged 1% of the country are still 3 million strong. And there are only two people left in the race.

But this attack comes closest to the real reason I think people are rubbed the wrong way by American political dynasty. It hews close to what it means to be an American -- the rejection of royalty or aristocracy or any privilege by birthright, of being born into one's class. That is the root of the great national fairy tale called the American Dream, that anyone can grow up to be president. And its fairy-tale nature is struck at quite directly by the cold reality that someone who's a Bush or a Clinton has got better odds at the big time than someone who's just a Schmoe, or a Suarez, or a Saad.

Obama obviously embodies the American Dream in a fairly straightforward way (as does Edwards, who reminded audiences he was the son of a millworker so often as to diminish its power). He plays on it often and successfully when he refers to the younger version of himself as just "a skinny kid with a funny name." Clinton embodies it no less. Her father was a conservative Republican curtain-maker. Born a Rodham, and having become a Clinton before Clintons were cool, her story is no less an affirmation of the national fairy tale than her husband's was, or Obama's is. (In fact, with so many fairy princes and princesses on the stage, one has to wonder if I'm right to disparage it as a fairy tale!) Yet she is cast effectively as an heir to power, not as someone who pulled herself up by the bootstraps.

Is this a sexism thing? Is it just a Hillary thing? Certainly we hear much more about her husband, about his parents, and about Obama's parents, (and about Edwards's parents) than we have heard about Hillary's. Could she have pre-empted some of the dynastic criticisms by talking more often about her childhood? Or would this have been seen as simply exploitative, a hollow cry of "I'm just one of you" from someone who has been elevated well above most of us for the last two decades, and who we've grown accustomed to seeing as American royalty and not as the daughter of a Chicago curtain-maker?

Way back when I was teaching, I used to give students zerox copies of the forclosure and bank sale notices from the local papers from the early 1930's, and send them out to map and describe what they could actually see as the indications (in an almost anthropological sense) about the impact of the Great Depression of the late 20's and early 30's. What I wanted them to comprehend was less the arguments about what was done about those times, but more about what really went wrong, and ultimately how things were fixed. In essence, I wanted them to have good pictures in their heads as we evaluated what FDR actually did, and the results, and how we should evaluate those results.

Virtually every city in the US has an architectual line between late 1920's domestic construction, and what was built in the late 1930's. Most of the lines are mixed constructions -- you will find 2 story houses with gables and creative lines, mixed in with small, well-built, what we today call starter homes, single story, cape cod or ranch styles, rather simple in design. This is where the speculative builders of the 20's left lots in between their offerings, and then in the late 30's, with land released by the banks, those who were following the modest income and credit codes of FDR's FHA Mortgage program, built the next generation of houses. Between the houses of the 20's, and the late 30's is a revolution in Housing Finance as well as ultimately, a considerable cause of the Great Depression.

Prior to the Depression, the majority of homes were purchased on a short term note. You got a note for 5 years, with a balloon payment at the end, and then one negotiated with the bank for a new note covering the balloon. Of course the rate of interest would be adjusted with the new note. But what happened in the 1920's, at a time when commercial and investment banking were not seperate, was that Banks moved assets into the attractive stock market which was zooming, and then, after 1929, when they went bust in the market, the liquid cash available to re-finance the balloons simply disappeared, and the Banks took back the housing where owners could not meet the balloon or had cash to cover. It was not at all unusual after 1929 for Banks to repossess homes that were nearly 2/3rds paid up, with all owner-equity being lost. So families doubled up, tripled up, and tried to keep one note paid up. None the less the Banks, repossessing acres of property, mostly failed by the dawn of the FDR Administeration. As an example, the Bank of Akron President Wendell Willkie, eventually, after reorganization, paid .07 cents on the dollar for savings accounts when it became Second National.

The New Deal contained three elements of a solution to this problem. First, the division of Banking into two segments, Commercial and Investment, with only small accounts in the commercial segment insured. In addition, the Savings and Loan segment was created, which advantaged small savers with insured accounts, and a small advantage in savings interest rates, but a clear restriction on lending -- limited to local housing that met FHA standards.

What FHA offered was pretty simple, an inspection system that validated whether the construction of a house met all codes, local, and their own, and insurance to the lender if buyers met credit standards. FHA had a cap on the amount of loans, which was what forced the change in design from the gargoyles of 20's style, to the cape cod or ranch design of the late 30's. Porches, sun and front were eliminated, Entry Halls disappeared, rooms got downsized, and kitchens became streamlined with the efficent work triangle, but became much smaller. Compared with the 1920's nothing anticipated having household help.

But financially, these new houses, and all that came after them with VA and FHA insured mortgages, offered relatively low down payments, and 20 year or later 30 year mortgages at a fixed rate. Over time the cap on loans was raised to accomodate inflation and some additional expectations in what was a basic house, but until the late 1970's the early 1930's reforms held. Local savings converted into local mortgages, with the lender insured.

In his second Inaguaral Address, FDR's famous words were about one third of this nation being Ill Housed, Ill Clothed and Ill Fed. FHA which was on the books, but had not yet kicked in, began to deal with the housing problem on the margins. That's what those older "Starter Homes" really represent that I taught my students to find and mark on maps as an indication of the impact of the Great Depression. But what made that recovery possible was not white lightening or political rhetoric, it was something we hate to discuss -- pure and simple regulation of the banking and financial sectors of the economy.

While FDR died in early 45, and Truman retained all his regulatory policy well into the 50's, and Eisenhower did not change much, nor did Kennedy or LBJ, it began to change with Nixon, with moving up the cap on FHA loans beyond the rate of inflation, and then following the Carter inflation, the regulation of Savings and Loans was eliminated, leading to the crash of these institutions in the late 1980's. Without understanding cause, or the reason for these plain jane savings organizations in sustaining middle and working class home ownership -- Congress just bailed out the lenders who had the wit to reorganize, and let it go at that. Essentially they financed the next bump in housing inflation, whether it be in inflated prices for existing homes, speculation in lots for tear-downs in good areas, or McMansion housing far from jobs and culture in the exurbs, that requires vast investment in infrastructure on the part of existing home owners and the states. Essentially we are back to 1928 what with ARM Mortgage arrangements (like the old Balloons) that can be massively increased without any relationship to wages or salary or the economy, and the "right" of the financial institutions (probably foreign speculators in our Real Estate Market) to again foreclose acres and acres of housing.

I don't know that Obama has said anything at all about this -- Hillary wants a 90 day moritorium on forclosures. Neither discuss re-regulation of the Finanial Institutions so as to protect capital dedicated to working and middle class home ownership, which is what will be necessary. FDR did it by inventing FHA Insurance (good home and good credit was insured) and by banking regulation that isolated small private and insured savings for the home ownership market. What worked is his legacy well into the late 1970's.

The decision by some in the Kennedy Clan to endorse Obama after the SC Primary last week may have surprised many, but it shouldn't. For in a very interesting way it represents the unification of two wings of the 1960 power center that elected John Kennedy. What should surprise is that so many of our pundits have missed the call.

Barack Obama is, without question, the candidate of the Daley Family wing of the Democratic Party. Democrats from Illinois simply do not move into a position to be elected Senator without the blessing of what remains of the Chicago Machine -- and much remains and is led by the current Richard M. Daley. But if you dig back into your Daley Family Political History -- all the way back into the 1950's you find the relationship with the Kennedy Family. Old Joe owned a significant part of what counted in Chicago, beginning with the Merchandise Mart managed by his son-in-law, Sarge Shriver, and if you dig into the other high gross commerce, you find the liquor trade, supermarkets, and much else in obscure Kennedy Family holdings. In the days before reporting of campaign funding -- the Kennedy Family was able to generate much of what Jack needed out of Chicago, and one of the principle players in this was Mayor Daley, then and now perhaps know as Hizzhonor. On election day in 1960, Daley was able to hold the vote in the River Wards out of the report long enough to make certain it covered the excess Republicans from downstate. When Daley controlled his city and its institutions, he made certain that Chicago never had enough old lever voting machines to cover all the precincts. When the number the city owned reached about 66%, he would surplus some. Voting machines went into Republican Wards. Paper Ballots went to the River Wards. And on election night, 1960, his services in making certain those wards covered the excess Downstate Republican vote, may have played a role.

The last call Robert Kennedy took at the Ambassador Hotel before he went to the Victory Party downstairs, back in May of 1968, was from Mayor Daley, who called to tell Kennedy that he would be holding a press conference the next day to pledge the whole Illinois Delegation to Bobby's campaign for President. As we know, that didn't happen, but those were the days when a Machine Boss could make such promises.

Most people think the days of the old machines are dead and gone -- I beg to differ. I simply think some have been smart enough to adapt to a new environment, and learn how to survive. Thus the attraction as a candidate to the Illinois State Senate of a Harvard Honors Grad Lawyer -- not part of the Black Establishment in Chicago, but at the same time a skilled organizer able to work with all sides, the Business Community, the Daley Machine, and yes, if Larry Johnson's material holds water, even some elements of "the Outfit" which is what the mob is called in Chicago. So when Obama had proved his skills in Iowa and South Carolina, why would anyone be surprised if the Daley Family did not call in a few chit's from the Kennedy Family?

Now my point here is not what I believe to be a marginal relationship to "the Outfit" and all -- rather it is to focus on a very long term political alliance between the Kennedy's and the Daley's and their organizations. It is, what Political Scientists call a Power Center. You can describe it with old slogans, "The City that Works" or "Chicago ain't ready for Reform." I rather suspect that what the Daley side wants out of this is to send that bothersome Jesuit, USA Patrick Fitzgerald, back to New York. He has been drawing the circle too close to Mayor Daley's office, and with the Former Republican Governor already in Jail, The local Newspaper Owner on his way, and the investigation getting close to the current Democratic Governor, it is easy to see how Power Centers are threatened, but the threat can't be easily upended.

But we need to understand the Political Culture here -- one anyone familiar with Chicago probably comprehends. This is a culture that takes care of its own. It isn't neo-Liberalism, or neo-Conservatism, it laughs at things like the DLC or many of the reform movements -- it is essentially Irish Catholic, it knows there may be a famine or worse just over the Horizon, and while one must be suspicious of power, one must also have a good deal of it in all the institutional structures.

Now in contrast, reflect on how different this is from the Clinton Power Center as it has been constructed by both Bill and Hillary. The so called New Democrats movements that made the coalition around the Clintons in the early 90's -- one that was not based in Urban America precisely, one that didn't have any sort of passionate connection with the Labor Movement, one based more in the academic Meritocracy, less in the relatively mundane problem solving approach of an urban political machine, this is the Clinton Power Center. It is the Robert Reich's who will tell you how the economy is changing in dramatic and revolutionary ways, eliminating the networks that were dependable in the past if you supported your Union and the local alderman, but offers nothing substantial as to how you can secure the life of your family if you haven't the talent or means to access post-modern skills. But all this is attractive to those who see old systems as a drag -- which probably explains why Hillary, who is unwilling to commit to a strong save Social Security plank ironically seems to attract the more elderly, the service jobs workers, and the all round more vulnerable, while Obama is attracting the wine and quiche crowd with advanced degrees. The irony is that no one seems to comprehend the competition within the Democratic Party Circle of this culture divide.

January 31, 2008

Watching the Democratic debate, what strikes me most is how hard Clinton and Obama need to work to find a difference between them. And when they finally do differ, their views are more often complementary than dissonant -- they agree on the problems, and just have different ideas about how best to implement a solution. What's more, I feel like there's a genuine rapport between them that's developed over the campaign.

Compare that with the fire and the fury of the Republican debates, where from the first question candidates couldn't agree on as basic a question as whether Americans are better off now than they were 8 years ago, and often came to verbal blows personally. They're a mess.

The power of the Democratic ticket is clear not only in the debates, but in the fund-raising and turnout data for the campaigns and primaries so far. Americans are excited about getting rid of Bush/Cheney and getting one of these two into office. The point I'm building up to is that I'm wondering what the effect on the campaign would be if Obama and Clinton pledged to pick the runner-up as their vice-president.

Now, as I write this post, Blitzer just asked the same question, which is enough to make me think it's a terrible idea. And the candidates of course said they wouldn't rule it out (what else could they say?). But I still want to open it for discussion. Its effect on who would continue to vote in the primaries and who the eventual nominee is are one side of it. I'm more interested in how it will effect the tone of the remaining debates and the media messages in the months leading up to the convention.

If the two jointly announced a "Unity Pledge" before Super Tuesday -- a guarantee they will both be on the ticket in some order -- would they be more effective at distancing themselves as a pair from the other side? If they don't, will they necessarily devolve into more pettiness as the convention draws nearer (assuming their delegate counts stay neck-and-neck), or can the collegial tone they've (mostly) set so far survive on its own?

Question 1: Have you ever been arrested or convicted for any offense or crime, even though subject of a pardon, amnesty or other similar legal action? Have you ever unlawfully distributed or sold a controlled substance (drug), or been a prostitute or procurer for prostitutes?

Question 3: Do you seek to enter the United States to engage in export control violations, subversive or terrorist activities, or any other unlawful purpose? Are you a member or representative of a terrorist organization as currently designated by the U.S. Secretary of State? Have you ever participated in persecutions directed by the Nazi government of Germany; or have you ever participated in genocide?

Yet it's not. Because politics is perception, and if it's perceived that she's stumbling then she will have stumbled. The expectation fulfills itself as people like me go to the polls and vote based on the way we think the results will turn out. If I think the race is down to Clinton and Obama -- and judging by every media report, it is -- then I surely will vote for one of those two. And, because Edwards failed to capture any of the earlier states, I will perceive him to be out of the running, and my perception will make it true.

And that's exactly the spot I find myself in. And it's exactly the spot that, apparently about 2,000 other progressive Edwards-leaning blog readers have found themselves in. Many of them, like me, have whined stridently about the disproportionate power of Iowa and New Hampshire -- yet, hypocritically, I would certainly consider changing my Feb. 5 vote based on the narrative that those two states created.

Short version: A vote that changes after Jan. 3 is a vote against the power of one's own state primary.

January 13, 2008

I'm a little slow out of the starting gate with this one, but it seems that one of the major criticisms of the Iowa Democratic caucuses -- that the actual vote totals are kept secret -- has quietly disappeared into the cornfields. The purpose of this post is to bring attention to that change, and raise the questions of how and why it came about. [Update 1/14/08, 8 am: In fact, it seems that this problem has not yet been addressed. See update at the end. Can one be slow out of the starting gate and jump the gun??]

Let me first define three terms I'll need to talk about this topic clearly:

RAW VOTE The number of caucusgoers who cast a vote for each candidate at the beginning of the caucus (in the first round of voting).

REALIGNED VOTE The number of caucusgoers who cast a vote for each candidate at the end of the caucus (after eliminating non-viable candidates, and when all is said and done).

DELEGATE COUNT The number of delegates to the state convention each candidate has earned at the end of caucus night.

Previously, the Iowa Democratic Party released only the last of these three numbers to the media. So, if you look at the CNN caucus results page for 2004, you'll see that Kerry won 1,128 State Delegates, or 38%, compared to Edwards's 957, or 32%. There's a note attached to those figures, reading

"Instead of releasing caucus vote totals, the Iowa Democratic Party releases a total indicating the number of delegates to the state convention each candidate will receive."

Why would that matter? Well, since the number of delegates per precinct is not determined by population (but by a formula involving turnout in the last two elections), it means that a candidate could, in principle, come in first in the delegate count without getting the most realigned votes. You could basically win the caucuses but lose the popular vote... and no one would ever know.

The Iowa Democratic Party has been criticized harshly for this lack of transparency. For instance, Saletan and Schiller wrote in Slate, under the header "Why you'll never know who won Iowa":

On caucus night, the Iowa Democratic Party will release the delegate count. Here's when the party will release the raw vote count and the realigned vote count: Never. The party won't compile or even record them, except as a temporary step in most precincts so that the caucus chair can determine how many delegates each candidate gets. The party doesn't want raw votes compiled and released, because it wants the caucuses to be a collaborative activity [...] but if you want to know how many voters stood up for John Edwards, you're out of luck.

The percentage broadcast on the networks and reported in the newspapers is the candidate’s share of the 2,500 delegates the party apportions across Iowa’s 99 counties, based on Democratic voter turnout in each of the 1,784 precincts in the two most recent general elections. So, the turnout for a candidate in a precinct caucus could be huge, yet the candidate’s share of the delegate pie could be quite small — if that precinct had low voter turnout in 2004 and 2006.

The authors seem, to me, to confound the raw vote and the realigned vote in their piece, but as I read it they are saying that neither the raw nor the realigned vote is released -- only the delegate count (you might want to click the link to see if you read it the same way).

So I was all set to get royally cheesed about this lack of transparency, and Iowa's gall in insisting it maintain its first-in-the-nation status while the state Democratic party wouldn't even open its books to ensure the kind of fair vote accounting that Democrats have been campaigning for nationwide. And just as I fired up my snarkblaster to smother those poor Iowans in a deluge of withering blog-posting, I discovered a curious thing:

That link is to an Excel file published by the Gazette on one of their caucus coverage web pages (it's the first link on that page). Admittedly, it contains only the realigned vote, not the raw vote (which would have been nice to see), but the numbers add to 250,005, so it seems they would have to be an actual head-count, not just delegate numbers. The percentages are the same as the ones reported that night, so it would seem the media quietly (and perhaps without even being aware of it) switched from reporting the Iowa delegate count in previous years to reporting the realigned vote count this year.

[Update 1/14/08, 8 am, continued: Caucus turnout was about 240,000. There are 2,500 state delegates. It appears that the Gazette may have followed the Associated Press in simpy multiplying state delegates by 100 (to eliminate fractions, I guess) which coincidentally came out pretty close to real turnout. Bottom line is, we still only know the delegate counts, not the popular vote. And you can bottle up the next paragraph and save it -- I hope -- for 2012.]

If that's the case, I want to commend Iowa Democrats on a well-deserved move toward open election reporting. I also want to suggest that they should have gotten more recognition for this move -- particularly by those who have criticized them in the past -- than they did.

But most importantly, I'd like to know how and why this change occurred, especially since it happened so quietly (to me, anyway). When did it happen? Who pushed for it? Why this year?

I've written to two of the NYT op-ed authors asking if they know what happened, and they have not yet replied (in fairness, I wrote under this pseudonym and from a yahoo address, so I could have easily been spam-filtered or otherwise screened out as a crank). This weekend, I wrote to the Gazette and the Iowa Democratic Party asking the same questions. I'll let you know if I hear anything... and, if anyone out there knows more, please post it in the comments.

January 12, 2008

Again, fair warning, what I will describe is the way the DFL in Minnesota does things. Other states have different rules. None the Less every state has a Platform Committee and a Platform Commission, and some sort of process to recommend policy to the National Convention. But let's start at the top -- the Platform Committee for the 2008 Race -- how will it be done.

First of all, the Convention Platform will be written by a committee of over 100 persons, 2 from each state and territory, one male, one female. The Platform Committee delegates are selected by vote from among the elected and super delegates by state. In most cases this will reflect the outcome of the primary and caucus system, with the eventual nominee holding the majority of Platform Committee members. Thus the nominee usually controls the content of the Platform, but outside alliances are possible.

I'll get to the complex system we have for building our state platform later, but that said, if the state platform is adopted by the time the Platform Committee meets, they get a copy of each state's work, which is a recommendation and not something they are obliged to adopt. All states must classify their resolutions within one of fourteen areas, things like Labor Policy, Agriculture and Food Policy, World and Foreign Affairs, Veterans Issues, Environment and Conservation -- and someone at the staff level re-organizes the state's work, highlighting areas of agreement and disagreement. All Committee members get this product. Ideas that come from many states have more weight than single state matters.

Then the Platform Committee holds hearings, in recent years they have traveled to various parts of the country, breaking down into sub-committees. This is where our party interest groups get involved, they are invited to make presentations at hearings, agree or disagree with state proposals, point to legislative efforts, push priorities, and otherwise lobby the Committee to accept their language on critical issues. For groups that want to be heard it is important to know how to lobby the committee for real hearing time. Eventually the Committee votes, plank by plank on language and then the whole intent of the plank. What's agreed to becomes the Majority Report to the Convention. To have a floor fight over a plank, you have to establish strength for a minority report in the committee (I think it is 1/3rd disagreement with the plank as worded), and then to get a minority report to the floor, you have to get delegate signatures to support the minority report at a fairly high level -- in recent conventions it has been about 1500 delegates out of 4000 total. In otherwords, our current rules predicate against minority reports and floor fights. If a coalition exists that appears to be reaching the point where a floor fight might happen -- usually a compromise is negotiated. Television and print reporters usually interpret a floor fight as party disorganization -- and these days, candidates try to avoid this. But in most years, C-Span covers Platform Hearings and plank mark-up, so if you want to follow the arguments, that is where to find it. This year I anticipate the only issue that could lead to a floor fight would be withdrawal from Iraq -- but I expect a compromise on language.

At the state level the ordinary party activist has much greater opportunity to influence the platform, but only if one understands the process and is very organized. In Minnesota, we introduce resolutions at the Precinct Caucus, and if they are accepted, they move up to the next level, the Legislative District Convention, which establishes a platform committee, and presents the platform to delegates as a multiple choice test, machine scored. Delegates score the resolutions from strongly agree to strongly disagree, and those that receive a high strongly disagree score, usually end up being debated on the floor. (why have a floor debate if everyone basicly agrees on things?) We also have something called the ongoing platform -- resolutions passed with great strength in previous years -- that must have majority strength from opponents to come up again. (We don't debate Abortion any more.).

At any rate, then the Congressional Districts take up all the platforms written by counties and legislative districts within themselves, and they repeat the process. Those resolutions where there is disagreement are likely to receive floor debate and a vote, those with strong agreement go directly to the State Platform Committee.

Understood properly, an activist or activist groups prepare resolutions in advance, get them introduced at all precincts, and sent up the system to the Legislative District Platform, on to the CD Platform, and then on to the State Party. You do this in all eight Congressional Districts, run them up the system, and it will likely show up in the State Platform. These days, for instance my E-Mail includes about twice a week, proposed resolutions from the Progressive Caucus. You can suggest edits, and they are being debated on line. People will then take them to Precinct caucus, introduce them, and start them up the system. (In the old days we had to go to meetings, and mimeograph the draft wording and then edit it again.) Labor and Education are doing the same thing with virtual meetings. The advantage thus goes to organized efforts. In fact this is one of the primary ways movements that are outside the party can influence the party direction in policy. Again, victory goes to those who are organized, and get their resolutions highly ranked in all Congressional District Platforms.

At the State Platform level, all resolutions that reach the committee are examined to see whether they are essentially the same as existing parts of the ongoing platform. If there are critical differences, the State Convention might (depending on resolution strength) be asked to modify the ongoing platform. Those essentially similar to existing planks go on a list to be reaffirmed by the convention.

New items then get sorted into the 14 areas of the Platform form, and then ranked by strength (came up in 7 of 8 Congressional Districts for instance). Those highly ranked then get examined for clarity of language, (does the resolution call for money, for legislative action, etc.?) Once final wording is established, it goes into the platform document which will be voted on using the multiple choice method, by all delegates to State Convention. Only those resolutions that either change the ongoing platform or score in the middle (half way between Strongly Agree and Strongly Disagree) end up as Floor debate items. When resolutions arrive advocating opposite policy, they get set up for votes as minority/majority items, with delegates required to select either A or B, and they are advised as to the strength behind each alternative. Party Rules ended up putting a ceiling on the number of resolutions that can be accomodated in any one year (a number selected because of the technology of machine scoring -- 225). There is also a garbage resolution at State Convention, that is removal of old resolutions in the platform made irrelevant because of Political Action. If legislation gets past and becomes law, we remove advocacy for it from the final document.

The State Platform Committee can also hold hearings on strongly disputed resolutions, and then offer the delegates a summary of the positions. This happened in 1984 when I co-chaired State Platform, and we got organized resolutions on the Israeli Occupation of Palestinian Territory. One CD sent forward a resolution to Abolish Israel (for those who want to know, the 7th, now represented by Colin Peterson, Chair of House Agriculture) three placed priority on Israeli Security, and demanded a change in the 67 borders, and three called for recognition of Arafat's PLO Government. So we had a hearing, I got the "joy" of writing up the report to the conflicting resolutions, and in the end, nothing passed. Two years later it came back again -- same division, same arguments, again nothing passed. Then in 88 the supporters of Arafat changed tactics, and offered language about recognizing "Palestine Nationhood" -- and as far as I know we now have two policies -- Security for Israel and Nationhood for Palestine. Since 88 the only thing that has changed is support first for Oslo and then support for diplomacy. This year sounds like a new effort so I have heard. Four years ago the party resolved after several efforts, to get out of NAFTA, and two years ago compromise language was a huge fight, and I expect it again this year. We are also promised a fight on land use vis a vis raising corn for Ethanol, and state tax benefits attached to Ethanol production. And yes, we probably will put in our platform strong language against any use of troops outside the US without explicit Congressional Action. I don't know what the Gitmo resolution will look like -- but there will be one, and there is also an anti-torture resolution that also restores Habeus Corpus. I am sure these will pass without much opposition.

Overall, Platform obligates no DFL elected official to vote according to a resolution -- but in a limited number of cases, elected officials have suffered for going against the platform. For after the State Convention, the Platform Committee reorganizes itself into a Commission, and turns into a lobby for the party for these resolutions, and the ongoing platform, and from time to time makes life difficult for elected officials who fail to see the resolutions as the sentiment of the party as they vote. Officals have been known to fail to get endorsement for re-election because they have ignored the platform, to have endorsement fights, to have trouble raising money. Any effort to seek higher office can be impacted by being in opposition to a strongly supported plank.

In Primary States party activists don't have a similar point of entry for resolutions, and a clean way of measuring the strength of issues at all levels, and rules for actually having delegates vote on Platform. They generally write a platform, but elect representatives from county organizations to do the job, and thus lack the means for opening the party up to the movements outside of the party that need political support to accomplish their interests. In the end, I think bringing movements into the Platform Process through precinct caucus is healthy for the party. I know policy on Civil Rights, Welfare, Environmental Issues, Feminist issues, Gay and Lesbian Rights and much else came into the party in this way -- and we are richer for it.

It seems there is a growing market for an understanding of Party Rules among those carefully watching our Democratic Party Processes -- so I thought I would take up two areas of interest, the selection of Super Delegates, and our Platform Processes. A Caution, what I know is derived from party experience in Minnesota's DFL, and while the DNC sets overall rules and guidelines, (with the ultimate sanction being having your delegates not seated at the National Convention, as Florida and Michigan face this year) rules and processes differ state by state. In fact one should always keep in mind that there is really no such thing as a National Democratic Party -- there are 50 plus state and territorial parties that have the franchise for their state, and in turn the DNC, Democratic National Committee is a representative body elected by the State Parties. People came to understand this in 2005 when Howard Dean was elected Chair of the DNC on the platform of strengthening the State Parties by investing in assets and skilled staff, something those who have problems with State Parties having influence have had a bit of difficulty with over the past couple of years. Last year we all witnessed Rahm Emanual calling out Dean for not sending his DCCC committee more funds, while Dean kept putting assets and staff into states. Understanding such power jousts is just one element in seeing the picture of our party as it currently exists. Dean solved the problem by borrowing money that he shared with Rahm, but the assets Dean put at the State Level ended up electing more Congresspersons than Rahm's committee did. For now, Dean 1, Rahm 0. But one thing is sure, there will be another tournament, for power centers are always contested.

Back in the bad old days before 1972, Party Bosses played a much more powerful role in Democratic Parties than they do today. The elections for the ongoing officers in the party were closed systems -- old Mayor Daley would sit down with his best buddies and decide endorsements for office, state and national committee people, state and local party officers, and it would all be put on one slate, and offered as a package, with little opposition. The McGovern-Fraser reforms ended all that, State Parties must have elections for these positions, and the process must be open to opposition, and in any sort of delegate selection, awards must be based on rules of proportionality, gender balance and affirmative action with respect to racial, religious and ethnic groups. It was a huge change -- and one result of it was that the old Powers-that-Were actually let a number of State Parties go into Bankruptcy rather than conform to the new Rules. A number of State Parties in the South took this route rather than allow Black elected Party Officers control the parties. They declared bankruptcy, local courts took them into receivership, and the same good-ole boys continued to control things. When Dean was elected one of the first things he had to do was pull the parties out of receivership, in many cases discovering that assets in warehouses were little more than 1970's typewriters and mimeo machines. Some parts of the land like their politics one-party flavored, thus narrowing the range of who can contest for power. Many insider fights are about such.

Super Delegates -- how we select them

When we did the McGovern-Fraser reforms, we intentionally took any advantage elected officials had in selecting the party nominee away from them, but over the years since 1972, people gradually realized that excluding them from the ongoing business of the party weakened the party. Delegates selected in a Presidential Year tend to be primarily about "their candidate" -- with less interest in the ongoing nurture of the party. They are less dependable for turning out for a down ballot race, putting things aside and pitching in for a Special Election say for a State Legislative Seat. Thus after the 1976 election, the party looked for a means to incorporate current office holders in the party structure without taking away the things that had been accomplished by the Reforms. Thus the first super delegates were office-holders elected in special caucuses limited to office holders at specific levels, for a certain number of delegate seats that were added to the total delegations. Thus, around the country this spring you will see State Legislators gather in caucus, and elect some assigned number of their own to Super Delegate status. Likewise you will see mayors have a similar caucus state wide -- and there will be another caucus for County Commissioners and City Council delegates. The rules will say how many must come from small communities, how many from metro and city governments. Minnesota's delegation went up by about thirty delegates when this reform was instituted -- I think it was 69 to 95 but I could be wrong. States that voted for the last Presidential Candidate get a few more slots than those who supported the opposition. The DNC sets the number according to a formula in the National Call. In effect, this puts our state elected leadership in position to be persuaded by any Presidential Candidate, and should that candidate win the National Election and occupy the WH, then the elected official might have leverage on appointments, or perhaps policy. They may get phone calls returned.

There are other super delegates these days. We give a slot to all of our Senators, our Congresspersons, and State Wide Constitutional Officers. We also reserve a place for the State Party Chair and Co-chair (must be of opposite genders), and the elected delegates to the DNC. In Minnesota we have four, and they are elected for four year terms at the State Convention. Other States put Committeeperson on the Primary Ballot. What really distinguishes Democrats from Republicans these days is that we insist these positions be filled by election -- either one held among office holders, or as a result of an election. One cannot say that a member of Congress is not elected. Moving in this direction over the last 30 so years has been a matter of incorporating in those likely to be concerned with the ongoing party -- between elections. Today, about 38% of the full convention Delegates come out of these processes -- in my mind we have probably gone a little too far with it, I would personally like a rule that limited Super Delegates to 1/3rd of the total National Convention delegation. On the other hand we also have a rule that elected officials should not run for a delegate position outside this system -- meaning we do reserve the majority of the delegate positions for candidate supporters.

While we have already seen some super delegates make candidate commitments, (George Miller of California made one this week for Obama) many will not, they will wait to see the level of support each candidate receives in their state, and generally they follow along. The State and Local elected officials have not been selected yet, and again it is my experience that the selection mirrors proportional support in the state as a whole, after it has been established in a caucus or primary. But in a two person race, such as between Clinton and Obama, where the elected delegate count may stay fairly even for a time, most of the Super Delegates will hold off. If one pulls ahead, then they will rush to join the bandwagon. I hope that at least the State Chairs and the DNC members extract promises for keeping the Dean Reforms of the Party as the price of their endorsements. It is one area where I have Clinton Doubts -- her Husband was not a party builder, and he did not recommend DNC chairs who cared about the State Parties. Hillary sided with Rahm Emanual in that little joust last year over party money, and she did not support party ownership of all the new technology Dean has distributed to the state parties. Put clearly, I want strong state parties so we can win the battle of reapportionment in 2011, and the only way to do that is to control State Legislatures and Governorships. And I have my doubts about Obama too, what with all the talk about bi-partisan approaches. In one sense he is of the remains of the old Chicago Machine, and while much of it is dead, some parts still live.

A federal judge refused on Wednesday to delve into the destruction of CIA interrogation videos, saying there was no evidence the Bush administration violated a court order and the Justice Department deserved time to conduct its own investigation.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy was a victory for the Bush administration, which had urged the courts not to wade into a politically charged issue already being investigated by the Justice Department, CIA and Congress.

The CIA has acknowledged last month that in 2005 it destroyed videos of officers using tough interrogation methods while questioning two al-Qaida suspects. Lawyers for other terrorism suspects quickly asked Kennedy to hold hearings, saying the executive branch had proved itself unreliable and could not be trusted to investigate its own potential wrongdoing.

Kennedy disagreed, ruling that attorneys hadn't "presented anything to cause this court to question whether the Department of Justice will follow the facts wherever they may lead and live up to the assurances it made to this court."

January 08, 2008

We've had lots of questions about how a caucus works, mostly based on what various reporters in the MSM have published. I've responded to some points in EP's earlier post and various E-Mails. Time is to up front deal with what this "thing" is, and my speciality -- the History of Democratic Party Caucuses. Believe me, History explains much.

Minnesota uses essentially the same caucus system that Iowa uses, and my understanding of our process dates back to the summer of 1970, when I was doing chemotherapy for Cancer, and had a "little job" writing up summaries of written testimony sent in to what was then the McGovern Commission of the DNC, but was morphing to the McGovern-Fraser Commission, because George was going to explore running for President, and the Commission to reform the delegate selection rules had been handed off to then Congressman Don Fraser. Most people know that the Democratic Convention of 1968 was Hell, in large measure because the Robert Kennedy candidacy and the Gene McCarthy Campaign had indicated a huge division of opinion as to where the party should stand on Vietnam -- but the rules allowed the then Party Bosses to control the delegate selection process, and thus dim if not totally still the voice of a huge constituency that wanted to be heard. So while the convention in 1968 gave Hubert the Nomination, they gave George McGovern the booby prize -- come up with new rules to reform the delegate selection process for the Party. George Accepted, held hearing across the country, and then handed off to Don Fraser.

Don Fraser finished the process, the DNC adopted temporary rules in line with the new ones for the Call for the 1972 Convention, delegations were selected accordingly, and the 1972 convention adopted the new rules as the Reform Rules. Today, with just fairly minor changes, they are the rules of the Democratic Party for Delegate Selection. The real drama at the 1972 convention was not the adoption of the rules, rather it was a floor vote on the Credentials Report on the Illinois Delegation. Hiz Honor Richard Daley had arrived at convention with his machine selected delegation, but another delegation, elected according to McGovern-Fraser Rules demanded the credentials -- there was a hearing, a majority and minority report, and a floor vote. When the Daley delegation lost, and the Convention Chair told the Sergeant at Arms to escort Chicago's Mayor and his delegates off the floor, and seat the properly elected one, Reform was real. If video were honest -- that scene is how they would date Democratic Party Reform.

Now what were these McGovern-Fraser Reforms all about? They authorize two modes for selecting delegates -- the caucus and the primary. Both have the same intent. One must understand that both are not elections, they are ways of doing party business, one of the businesses of the party is to select a delegation to the National Convention that reflects the judgment of party members as to both policy (the platform) and the favored nominees. This is to be done in a way that is open to all significant (15% strength) organized viewpoints in the party -- it is to be proportional in part, and above all it is to be gender balanced and totally open to all racial, ethnic, and religious groups within the party. Understood historically we were drawing a line under our history of the exclusion of Blacks from the Southern Democratic Parties, and we were opening the process up to strong movements connected to the party demanding policy change. The requirement for Gender Balance was a response to the Feminist Movement within the Party, and the requirement for Affirmative Action pressed the matter of equity for ethnic, and age groups. At all levels of the process of selecting delegates to all nominating conventions within the party -- these rules must apply. Dog Catcher to President. (Elwell wants to know if anyone elects a Dog Catcher anymore? As the Resident Siberian Husky that is authoritarian politics that concern her.)

OK -- so the Caucus became one of the means for selecting delegates to do party business such as endorsing candidates, and electing party officers. In 1972, Minnesota and Iowa already had forms of caucus, but they had to change given the new rules. Iowa was the first to move, and we more or less followed their example. Since over the years I have chaired about ten Precinct Caucuses -- and know the rules and form, I will describe in terms of what actually happens at one.

The State Call is written by the former State Central Committee, and submitted for approval to the committee of the DNC. It is then published by the state party, with a date and time set for caucus. The party finds handicapped accessable places in every precinct, and publishes locations. Precinct Chairs elected two years earlier open the caucus, and chair the proceedings, including the election of the next Chair. The agenda is set by the Call, but can be modified by caucus attenders.

People arrive and register. In Minnesota we do not have party registeration, thus anyone who comes and signs the sworn or affirmed statement that they intend to vote for endorsed DFL Candidates and will be18 on election day, and a Citizen can participate. In Iowa they have to change registeration which they can do at the registeration table. Anyhow at a time certain you close the registeration desk, draw a line under the names on the form, and do a count. How many residents of the Precinct have arrived and registered? You then divide that number by the number of assigned delegates for your precinct, and that tells you how many participants will be necessary to acquire one delegate to the State Legislative District Convention. If enough attendees (equal to one delegate) ask for sub-causing (In Minnesota we call it a walking sub-caucus) then you take nominations for sub-caucuses. Following that, you assign the areas in the room where the sub-caucuses will assemble, and you allow 15 minutes for this process. Then you freeze the floor and use appointed tellers to count all the sub-caucuses. Those that do not have enough for one delegate and/or do not equal 15% of the total attendence at the caucus, they are declared non-viable (in Minnesota, they don't make), and then you unfreeze the floor for 15 minutes so as to allow the participants with no caucus to join another, and for all the hard negotiations to take place. The object is always to get the most delegates, and to end up with the "high remainder" meaning you are likely to get an extra delegate, because you have something like 1.90 strength rather than 1.45 strength. Low remainder sub-caucuses trade for the alternate in a delegation to which they shift a few people, and high remainder sub-caucuses look at the others to protect the possibility of the extra delegate. (This is why we take calculators to caucus). Then you freeze the floor again, finalize the count, and the sub caucuses elect their delegates and alternates. The point is proportional representation at the very local level, with individual voters doing what in olden days was done in smoke filled rooms. Negotiating strength. Of course you have to gender balance, even at the precinct level.

After you select delegates, and then alternates -- you move on to platform resolutions. Well organized, you can set party policy with this process.

Precinct Delegates move on to the next level, where the whole process is repeated. Precinct Delegates can change their commitments, as our National Rules prohibit a commitment to a candidate at one level cementing one in at the next. In Iowa they do it only by county, in Minnesota we do it by State Legislative District except in Greater Minnesota where they do it by County. At the Legislative District Convention State Delegates are selected by the same sort of sub-caucus system, and they go to two conventions. The Congressional District Conventions select about 2/3rds of the National Delegates, and the rest are selected at the State Convention. At each stage sub-causeing is done if delegate strength equal to one delegate to be elected request it. This protects proportianality. And at all stages, gender balance must be respected. Yes it is a little complex, but remember it was invented to abolish the Racist part of the old Democratic Party -- and it was also invented to defeat the machine bosses, and to allow voices such as Bobby Kennedy and Gene McCarthy to be viable. I am not about to scrap it.

Now -- let me respond to objections. Some object because it is not a secret ballot. Well it isn't really an election, it is about party business such as nominations and endorsements, and party positions on public policy, and I think that ought to be transparent. In fact this is one reason I love the caucus -- you have to actually stand up and state and defend your choices and positions. Because success at Caucus frequently depends (really depends) on pre-caucus debate and organization, it is a totally important party building process.

Some folk don't like the math that eliminates a sub-caucus that doesn't make 15% in a precinct. Sadly -- and I have been in some of those that were super minorities -- the point of the process is to find the fulcrum of the party strength, and that isn't done by having a ton of one vote minorities hanging on to the process. So at all levels we give sub-caucuses that don't make the option of joining another caucus. The negotiations to join or not join can be powerful. (Coalitions and all that?)

In contrast the day after the New Hampshire Primary, the State Chair will have to look at the results by congressional district, and look at the candidate slates in the order they have been submitted, and balance each delegation and each congressional district by the proportional results and by gender. Only then will the determination of the National Delegates be clear. They will end up with a result very similar to our caucus system.

In the caucus system we weight precincts based on a formula of past performance in several General Elections. That is Precincts that strongly support DFL endorsed candidates get a few more delegates than those that poorly perform. Those that get out the vote have just a little more say in the next selection than those that underperformed. No, not one person one vote -- but both the primary and the caucus are essentially about party business. And yea, in party business you reward the party loyal.

As I said, this is probably more than anyone really wanted to know about the Democratic Party Caucus form -- but if you have questions, just ask.

Again, in a sense, this is a book review, the book in question being one I gave to five friends for Xmas this year. "She's No Lady: Politics, Family and International Feminism" by Arvonne Fraser, Nodin Press, 2007. There is a part of it I believe may help us understand how and why the plus 100 million Hillary Clinton Campaign is on the verge of Crash and Burn. Garrison Keillor wrote the introduction, and has done a couple of hour long interviews with Arvonne on Public Radio as part of the "virtual book tour."

So who is the Author of this political biography? Garrison calls her "Saint Arvonne of the Church of Perpetual Responsibility" and it is a pretty good characterization. Post College, she went to work as the Office Manager for Hubert Humphrey's Senate Campaign in 1948, from there to Office Manager of the DFL, and then she married one of HHH's staffers, Don Fraser, and quickly had six children. Between taking care of kids, sewing all her own clothes and those of her kids, (no, she hates to cook), she mastered the art of campaign management, eventually getting Freeman elected Governor, helped elect Gene McCarthy, Organized JFK's 1960 Campaign, and got her Husband elected first to the State Senate, and in 1962, to the House of Rep. Moved to DC, she took over managing the office on the Hill, but quickly got interested in the emerging Feminist Movement, and after organizing Hill Staffers, she moved on to help birth NOW, the National and Minnesota Womens' Political Caucus, the Women's Equity Action League, and many other key feminist groups. In 1977, Carter appointed her Assistant Secretary of State for Women's Affairs. In between she wrote the language for Title IX, and got it through Congress. When Reagan eliminated the position in State in 1981, she brought many of the programs back to Minnesota, put them into the Humphrey Institute where she was appointed, raised the money to run them over the next 12 years.

In 1993, after Clinton's election, considerable lobbying went into getting the new administration to appoint her as the US Delegate to the UN Commission on the Status of Women -- and she was appointed. But after about three years, Hillary had Arvonne fired just before the Beijing UN Conference. According to Arvonne, Hillary did not want to bother with all the linked up Feminist Organizations that had carried this effort over the bad years of Reagan and Bush I, and thus decided Arvonne had to leave. She did. Arvonne did not exactly appreciate the fact that Hillary had one of Arvonne's best friends do the honors, and in addition have other Clinton people in State see too it that the US lost its seat on the UN Commission by not attending the meeting where nominations were done.

So Arvonne came home, ran a few more campaigns, kept her hand in, and decided to write her political biography. Came out last fall -- got much local attention given that any DFL'er who has ever managed a campaign gets Arvonne style training, (and we love her). Arvonne doesn't actually dislike Hillary -- she just doesn't think she has really paid her dues sufficent to claim the Feminist Halo. Arvonne understands that Marriages between people involved deeply in Poliics are pretty normal, but that unless each partner holds up their own end in their own field, the accomplishments of one partner do not necessarily pass through to the other partner. Anyhow, this election season she did not endorse Hillary, I am not sure who she prefers between Obama and Edwards, but I am sure she will organize her February 5th Precinct Caucus.

Because Garrison Keillor has done two hour long interviews with Arvonne on local Public Radio -- and because he asked questions about Hillary essentially ordering Arvonne eliminated from the State Department, this has become an undercurrent in the local DFL circles, and I am led to understand that across the country there are similar stories being told that do not serve the Clinton Presidential Campaign well. All the older Feminists who were in on the action in the late 60's and through the 70's know all about this sort of thing, and while many of them would love to see a woman elected President, they are not sure about this candidate, and they have withheld support. I think Arvonne's book and her story are at the root of it all. When leadership knows you had a hand in firing the woman who probably founded more specialized feminist organizations than anyone else -- you have cards to show before you get an endorsement. My guess is that the tale Arvonne tells has counterparts all over the country, and once the first little break occured in the dike around the Clinton Machine, the instinct was to walk away, to not engage with saving something for Hillary. Afterall, she fired Arvonne Fraser.

I have many more examples that fit in with this story -- the decision the Clinton's made to oppose Howard Dean's election to chair the DNC back in 2005, the efforts they made to stop in its tracks the 50 State Program that Dean helped plan, and has carefully executed. All that stuff coming out of Rahm Emanual in 2006 about Dean sending the DNC money to state party organizations, and not to Rahm's committee -- all that was about who owns the party, and who decides what outside movements are part of the party process and thus influence it. But right now I think the fact that Arvonne is telling her story, on radio that carries into South Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin and of course all of Minnesota has been somewhat influential. I suspect across the country, there are other very similar stories, and taken together they are the back story to the crash of the 100 million dollar campaign.

And don't forget that last name, Fraser. I will be coming back to it in my next post which will be about Caucus Rules, Math and Democratic Party Reforms. That is Arvonne's Husband.